From Patent Hold-Up to Patent Hold-Out?

2016 ◽  
Vol 14 (1) ◽  
pp. 1-19
Author(s):  
Marie Barani
Keyword(s):  
Intellectual Property ◽  
Property Rights ◽  
Intellectual Property Rights ◽  
Technological Solution ◽  
Material Resources ◽  
License Agreements ◽  
Set Up ◽  
Made In ◽  
Standard Development

Standardization is a process through which potential rivals cooperate to have the best technological solution adopted as the next standard. They pool together financial, human and material resources. Intellectual property rights, especially patents, are a powerful tool for them to recover investments made in the process and keep participating in it. However, to avoid abusive use of patents incorporated in de iure standards, companies contributing to the standard development have to comply with specific duties, amongst which making the technology essential to the standard available on Fair, Reasonable and Non-Discriminatory terms and conditions, i.e. the so-called (F)RAND commitment1. This commitment has been created to prevent patent hold-up from patent holders, which could force implementers to enter into disadvantageous license agreements. With the changes in the cellphone market in the last ten years, the content of this (F)RAND commitment has been challenged in courts and in front of antitrust and competition authorities. The question is whether this duty, set up to avoid hold-up, is not used by some implementers to engage in “hold-out” or “reverse patent hold-up” strategies.

Standardization and Intellectual Property Rights

2000 ◽  
pp. 80-101 ◽  
Author(s):  
Eric J. Iversen
Keyword(s):  
Intellectual Property ◽  
Property Rights ◽  
Information And Communication Technologies ◽  
Intellectual Property Rights ◽  
Innovation Process ◽  
Technology Infrastructure ◽  
Ict Industry ◽  
The Individual ◽  
Technical Standardization ◽  
Standard Development

In today’s environment of rapidly evolving information and communication technologies (ICTs), technical standardization is said to be confronted by a “minefield” of intellectual property rights (IPRs). Patents and other industrial IPRs that might belong to individual developers of technology have the potential to undermine the collective pursuit of technical standardization that might serve the common interests of the sector or industry. This tension between the individual and the collective, between the development of technology and its diffusion, is however by no means new; it is an inherent feature of standard development as an institution of innovation. The fact that this tension has only recently been converted into conflict raises a host of interesting questions about standardization in the evolving environment of the ‘digital age’. In this chapter, we will address some of these. We are especially interested in the fundamental question concerning the roles of standard development organizations and IPRs in the “technology infrastructure” (Tassey, 1995) and how these roles are “co-evolving” (Nelson, 1995) with the rapidly developing ICT industry. The contention is that this process of coevolution is bringing what are initially complementary functions in the innovation process into increased confrontation. In this chapter such questions will be explored in terms of innovation-theory in which the role this ‘technology infrastructure’ plays is explicitly recognized. The discussion of this relationship moreover will be largely presented in terms of a case study, featuring the controversy that arose during the standardization of the now popular GSM system, produced by the European Telecommunication Standards Institute (ETSI).

The seed and the citizen

Focaal ◽  
2014 ◽  
Vol 2014 (69) ◽  
pp. 28-44 ◽  
Author(s):  
Birgit Müller
Keyword(s):  
Intellectual Property ◽  
Property Rights ◽  
Intellectual Property Rights ◽  
Property Relations ◽  
Agronomic Characteristics ◽  
Public Meetings ◽  
Inspection Agency ◽  
Cultivation Practices ◽  
Canadian Food Inspection Agency ◽  
Set Up

While farmers set up conditions for the development of plants, the seeds they help grow into plants determine conditions for the farmers. Modern plants not only have agronomic characteristics but also intellectual property rights, phytosanitary regulations, and classifications attached to them. Interacting with their seeds creates fields of property and power, situations of possibility and impossibility, in which farmers and breeders operate. The biosocial networks from which seeds emerge are animated by bureaucratic measures, property relations, and research and cultivation practices that I will explore in action. Seeds not only become what they are in multifarious networks of natural, cultural, and political agencies, but their emergence and coevolution with humans is ruptured through deregistration, persecution, confiscation, and destruction of proprietary seeds. This article will take the reader from the fields of farmers in Saskatchewan to seed breeders in Saskatoon and ultimately to public meetings organized by the Canadian Food Inspection Agency in Ottawa.

IT Security Governance Legal Issues

2012 ◽  
pp. 47-73
Author(s):  
Gemma María Minero Alejandre
Keyword(s):  
Intellectual Property ◽  
Property Rights ◽  
Intellectual Property Rights ◽  
Developed Countries ◽  
Protection Measures ◽  
Security Governance ◽  
Database Right ◽  
Substantial Investment ◽  
Copy Protection ◽  
Made In

The protection of the investment and creativity made in producing computer programs and databases by intellectual property rights is still not harmonised internationally. Taking into account that IT is used not only to produce these goods, but also to infringe their intellectual property rights, national laws nowadays also protect the so-called technological protection measures, such as passwords, encryption or copy-protection software, created to protect the intellectual property rights. Besides, IT must fulfill the privacy protection regulations currently in force and the companies using it must carry out the international auditing standards. But intellectual property rights cannot protect simple data and information, apart from the substantial investment made in either obtaining, verification, or presentation of data, by sui generis right over databases (or database right). This chapter examines and compares the current legislations of developed countries in order to find the characteristics -and the criticism- in common.

Rimage: Safeguarding Intellectual Property in China

2009 ◽  
Vol 13 (01) ◽  
pp. 145-156
Author(s):  
Janell Kurtz ◽  
Jim Q. Chen
Keyword(s):  
Intellectual Property ◽  
Middle East ◽  
Property Rights ◽  
Intellectual Property Rights ◽  
International Business ◽  
Field Research ◽  
Digital Publishing ◽  
Chief Operating Officer ◽  
On Demand ◽  
Set Up

Rimage was an on-demand digital publishing company based in Minnesota, USA. Since 1992, Rimage had been internationalizing its business in Europe, Scandinavia, Africa, Middle East, and Russia. By 2004, its products had penetrated Japanese market. Encouraged by its success in Japan, Rimage considered entry into China. The initial market assessment identified opportunities in China, but also risk. As a technology driven company, Rimage's main management dilemma was how to set up operations in China while keeping its intellectual property secure. Manny Almeida, Rimage's Chief Operating Officer, carefully pondered the company's entry into China. Did the opportunities outweigh the risks? This decisional case is based on field research. There is an epilogue detailing the steps Rimage took to protect its intellectual property in China. The case aims to provide insight for international business in safeguarding intellectual property rights.

scholarly journals The Role of Intellectual Property in Collaborative Research: Crossing the “Valley of Death” by Turning Discovery Into Health

2015 ◽  
Vol 10 ◽  
Author(s):  
Nathan Pauly
Keyword(s):  
Technology Transfer ◽  
Intellectual Property ◽  
Property Rights ◽  
Intellectual Property Rights ◽  
Transfer Process ◽  
Academic Literature ◽  
Technology Transfer Process ◽  
Private Corporations ◽  
Set Up ◽  
Oral History Interviews

Technology transfer is the process of transforming basic scientific discoveries into commercial products that can be sold to the public. Historically, the federal government has been the country’s largest funder of basic biomedical research through institutions such as the National Institute of Health (NIH). Private corporations utilize scientific knowledge generated at NIH to design drugs and medical devices that are then marketed to the American public. As a taxpayer funded institution, NIH has a fundamental responsibility to optimize the technology transfer process so that the American public receives the greatest return on its investment in the form of new healthcare products. Various laws passed in the 1980s have set up the technology transfer system to revolve around the dispensation of intellectual property rights. In recent years several prominent critiques of the technology transfer system’s use of intellectual property rights have emerged in academic literature. In order to assess the validity of these critiques I conducted ten oral history interviews with administrators at NIH that are deeply involved in the technology transfer process. This paper will demonstrate that many of the criticisms that are posed in academic literature do not impact research at NIH. However, interviews with officials at NIH indicate that there is still friction in the system that prevents the American public from receiving the maximum return on its investment.

IT Security Governance Legal Issues

2015 ◽  
pp. 72-99
Author(s):  
Gemma María Minero Alejandre
Keyword(s):  
Intellectual Property ◽  
Property Rights ◽  
Intellectual Property Rights ◽  
Developed Countries ◽  
Protection Measures ◽  
Security Governance ◽  
Database Right ◽  
Substantial Investment ◽  
Copy Protection ◽  
Made In

The protection of the investment and creativity made in producing computer programs and databases by intellectual property rights is still not harmonised internationally. Taking into account that IT is used not only to produce these goods, but also to infringe their intellectual property rights, national laws nowadays also protect the so-called technological protection measures, such as passwords, encryption or copy-protection software, created to protect the intellectual property rights. Besides, IT must fulfill the privacy protection regulations currently in force and the companies using it must carry out the international auditing standards. But intellectual property rights cannot protect simple data and information, apart from the substantial investment made in either obtaining, verification, or presentation of data, by sui generis right over databases (or database right). This chapter examines and compares the current legislations of developed countries in order to find the characteristics -and the criticism- in common.

scholarly journals License agreements: segmentation within the international market of seeds

2017 ◽  
pp. 19-45
Author(s):  
Lina María Díaz Vera
Keyword(s):  
Intellectual Property ◽  
Property Rights ◽  
Intellectual Property Rights ◽  
Competition Law ◽  
International Market ◽  
Internal Market ◽  
The Self ◽  
International Consensus ◽  
Market Chain ◽  
License Agreements

The self-replicating nature of seeds poses a challenge for the traditional configuration of Intellectual property rights, as it overlooks the boundary that prevents amateurs from replicating the technology embedded on it. The territorial scope of IP rights and the lack of an international consensus regarding the exhaustion of IP right aggravates the issue. This loophole enhances the segmentation of markets through license agreements of patents and plant varieties which multinationals employ to drag resources all along the market chain, by demanding payment of fees to each shackle. This might constitute an infringement of Competition Law regimes which is undertaken differently according with the tradition of each country but always with the aim of protecting the well-functioning of their internal market.

scholarly journals PERLINDUNGAN HUKUM HaKI DALAM PERJANJIAN WARALABA DI INDONESIA

Jurnal Hukum ◽  
1970 ◽  
Vol 26 (2) ◽  
pp. 571
Author(s):  
Lathifah Hanim
Keyword(s):  
Intellectual Property ◽  
Property Rights ◽  
Intellectual Property Rights ◽  
Legal Protection ◽  
Trade Secrets ◽  
Trademark Law ◽  
Applicable Law ◽  
Set Up ◽  
Indication Of Origin ◽  
Ipr Protection

Always related to the provision granting franchise rights to use and or use of certain intellectual property rights, which in this case embodied in the brand, which covers both trademarks and service marks, or indications of origin (indication of origin) and a specific format, formula, characteristics, methods, procedures, procedures, systems etc. that are typically associated with, and which can not be separated from each output or product that is produced and then sold, delivered or traded by using the trademarks, service marks or indications of origin mentioned above, called a trade secret.The problem is how the legal protection of intellectual property rights for the franchisor (the Franchisor) and Franchisee (the Franchisee) in franchise agreements in Indonesia.Franchise agreements is one aspect of legal protection to the parties of the actions harm others, including in providing legal protection for intellectual property rights. This is because the agreement can be a strong legal basis to enforce legal protections for the parties involved in the franchise system. If either party violates the agreement, then the other party can sue the infringing party in accordance with applicable law. Legal protection of intellectual property rights owned by the Parties to the Franchisor (the franchisor) will be better protected if the Franchise Agreement has been set up specifically on IPR protection, which is a pledge of certain restrictions that must be adhered to by the Franchisee (the franchisee), which directly or not directly intended to protect intellectual property rights of the Parties to the Franchisor (the franchisor). The Franchise Agreement which provides IP protection provisions also set Franchisee shall protect trade secrets provided by the franchisor during the term at least 2 (two) years after the franchise period expires. Franchisee shall maintain the rights and interests as holders of rights to the franchisor's brand. Franchisee is prohibited to run any other business which directly competes with the franchisor during the term of business and franchise and for a period of at least 2 (two) years after the franchise period expires. Intellectual Property Rights in the franchise business is also highly protected by the laws relating to intellectual property rights, namely: Copyright Law, Trademark Law, and the Trade Secrets Act.Key words: Franchise Agreement, Legal Protection.

The winding path for foreign companies: building R&D centers in China

2016 ◽  
Vol 37 (2) ◽  
pp. 3-11 ◽  
Author(s):  
Dominique Jolly ◽  
Francesco Masetti-Placci
Keyword(s):  
Intellectual Property ◽  
Property Rights ◽  
Intellectual Property Rights ◽  
Lessons Learned ◽  
Scientific Publications ◽  
Public Authorities ◽  
Content Type ◽  
Foreign Companies ◽  
Set Up

Purpose Only a few foreign companies have started significant R&D activities in China. Although these forerunners have opened the door, their experience now needs to be transferred to followers. The purpose of this paper is to use this experience to offer some guidance to foreign companies wishing to launch R&D activities in China. Design/methodology/approach The authors’ recommendations are based on their investigation into 50 existing foreign R&D centers in China and one pioneering experience into the management of one of those centers. The authors especially investigated the questions of location, people and intellectual property rights, and relationships with authorities. Findings Foreign companies wishing to do R&D in China will have to adapt to an environment different from those they are used to. The authors draw up recommendations that should help them to find their way. They particularly emphasize location in or close to clusters, the type of relationships to be developed with public authorities and with the communist party, the specific characteristics needed by workers in those centers, the need for a cautious intellectual property rights approach and the key role of returnees in R&D centers. These findings are based on previous experience and lessons learned directly by the authors as well as through meetings with R&D executives and managers of medium/large foreign companies or joint ventures s in China. Research limitations/implications The Chinese research, development and innovation landscape has evolved rapidly and has still not stabilized. Consequently, the authors’ recommendations, which capture best practices and recently learned lessons, are applicable for the next five years. Some of them might change in the future as the overall national and international situation evolves. Practical implications These recommendations offer guidelines to companies without R&D centers established in China for expanding their international technology strategy. They will help companies already operating successful R&D centers to better leverage previous investments and efficiently set up and operate R&D activities in China. Originality/value China has been on the R&D map for only a few years as exemplified by the surge of scientific publications and patent deposits, making China the country with the most patents in the world. No foreign company engaged in R&D can ignore this fact. Yet, few papers have been published with “how to?” guidelines.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document